England's RWC Preparations

First topic message reminder :

Original thread about to explode

https://www.606v2.com/t59064-englands-50-man-training-squad-for-rwc

As a general point I think one of the things Lancaster has tried to do is not create a 1st 15 and subs - but create a pool of 30+ players all of whom can fit into the team without disruption. This is what you need to win the WC and why teams like Scotland simply will not progress in the WC. When injuries strike England will have someone ready to step in. Scotland will not

beshocked wrote: Such a disappointing line up:picard:  All I wanted from Lancaster is to not mess up the options at hooker.

If you're not going to pick George then drop him. No point wasting his time.

Blown a perfect opportunity to pick him - Picked his fellow Sarries LH,Mako and picked his 2nd row buddy Kruis. Foolish.

It's a hodge podge mess that could go horribly wrong both in the backs and forwards.

Alternate interpretation could be that George has impressed in camp to a point where he has leapfrogged LCD and Webber and that this game is essentially a trial for the third hooker berth. Not beyond the bounds of possibility given that most of the players not involved in this 23 are pretty much on the plane (or bus in this case)

beshocked wrote: Such a disappointing line up:picard:  All I wanted from Lancaster is to not mess up the options at hooker.

If you're not going to pick George then drop him. No point wasting his time.

Blown a perfect opportunity to pick him - Picked his fellow Sarries LH,Mako and picked his 2nd row buddy Kruis. Foolish.

It's a hodge podge mess that could go horribly wrong both in the backs and forwards.

Doesnt it signal thatt he 2 picked are fighting it out for 3rd choice?

Rule 1 always read all the posts! What Margin said.

beshocked wrote: Such a disappointing line up:picard:  All I wanted from Lancaster is to not mess up the options at hooker.

If you're not going to pick George then drop him. No point wasting his time.

Blown a perfect opportunity to pick him - Picked his fellow Sarries LH,Mako and picked his 2nd row buddy Kruis. Foolish.

It's a hodge podge mess that could go horribly wrong both in the backs and forwards.

Pick him for what, it's the first warm up game and as mentioned above, what if it's because Lancaster already wants to keep him and is unsure on the other hookers?

Can't people think positively for once

beshocked wrote: Such a disappointing line up:picard:  All I wanted from Lancaster is to not mess up the options at hooker.

If you're not going to pick George then drop him. No point wasting his time.

Blown a perfect opportunity to pick him - Picked his fellow Sarries LH,Mako and picked his 2nd row buddy Kruis. Foolish.

It's a hodge podge mess that could go horribly wrong both in the backs and forwards.

Oh FFS. Four hookers in the squad, two hookers in the XXIII. He can't play them all in the first match.

Also, perhaps George isn't playing with his Saracens mates because, erm, the coaches want to see how the hookers gel with players they don't know well. This way, both George and LCD get gametime and they both play with unfamiliar squad members. That gives a fair basis for deciding who makes the final cut.

That said, this squad is what Lancaster said it would be at the outset: the one in which fringe players get to press their case. It's a mix of bench players from the first XXIII plus players who need to be given a tryout.

Clearly Corbisiero and Morgan are there to have their fitness tested. Clark, LCD and Burgess are there to see if they can make it work at this level. Most of the others are there to make sure they get gametime.

It could go badly wrong - though Lancaster's track record with scratch sides is pretty good (Paris in 2012, the first test in NZ, Cardiff this year and the Barbarians game, for instance), so I'd expect it to be competitive even if it loses.

What are you guys expecting from the game what would be deemed a success/disappointment etc?

Depends on what sort of side France put out. I would like to think any English XXiii would be competitive, a win against a similar French side would be good. I would fear for France if this side beat a French 1st team.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Can we have some muscle in there aswell though...not just flair.

I wouldn't say that England have been out-muscled much recently by the opposition?

beshocked wrote:
Is it a big blow? Perhaps not in your eyes but the backrow options are uninspiring. There is no player that might shake things up regardless of whether that was Slater (barely any gametime,inexperienced, Itoje (showed great club form,inexperienced) Burgess (inexperienced in RU but people raved about his performance at 6).

Ksevic as a proper traditional 7 might have asked some questions and warm ups are an ideal time to try out new players.

Wing - there's little experience there - Ashton would have given it some.

I am disappointed.

As I keep saying the only part of the squad with potential is Hooker and Lancaster will  probably squander that by starting Webber in the first warm up - hopefully it's George/LCD or LCD/George.

England aren't going to change their style of 7 at this stage.

I think it amazing that you are criticising SL for not picking Itoje. If there is one thing SL has been good at it is bringing through young players. The first I'd ever heard of Itoje (and I'm sure I'm not alone here) was when SL named checked him in his job interview to demonstrate his understanding of the development pathway and how he was capable of taking the long view. Itoje has had a good season and SL brought him in at the last minute to have a look at him. Having done that he's decided that it was too big a risk to introduce such an inexperienced player, to a pack that's generally performed well, given this is as pressured as rugby union ever gets. It's worth noting that Rowntree probably played a part in the decision (along with the hooker call), but then people seem far more reluctant to criticise him than SL...........

bedfordwelsh wrote:England team to face France
England XV: 15-Alex Goode, 14-Anthony Watson, 13-Henry Slade, 12- Sam Burgess, 11-Jonny May, 10- Owen Farrell, 9- Richard Wigglesworth; 1-Mako Vunipola, 2- Rob Webber, 3- Kieran Brookes, 4- George Kruis, 5-Geoff Parling, 6-Tom Wood, 7-Calum Clark, 8- Ben Morgan
Replacements: 16-Luke Cowan-Dickie, 17-Alex Corbisiero, 18-David Wilson, 19-Dave Attwood, 20- James Haskell, 21- Danny Care, 22-Danny Cipriani, 23-Billy Twelvetrees

It will be interesting to see how Burgess and Slade line up in attack. I'd guess Slade will mainly play at OC, but we'll see.

I think we might see Slade go to 10 and Cips to 15 for at least some of the game, with Burgess in a Tuilagi style role at 13 and 36 at IC.

They did something similar against the Baabaas, and that way the coaches will be able to evaluate their ability to cover other positions.

It'll be interesting to see how Clark goes after we've all wondered about his place and apparent lack of use. I hope he brings his form this season when he was physical and effective.

The rest well it's about
1) Fitness assessment
2) Check the form of those who have struggled with form recently
3) Evaluate the inexperienced ones

DaveM wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:England team to face France
England XV: 15-Alex Goode, 14-Anthony Watson, 13-Henry Slade, 12- Sam Burgess, 11-Jonny May, 10- Owen Farrell, 9- Richard Wigglesworth; 1-Mako Vunipola, 2- Rob Webber, 3- Kieran Brookes, 4- George Kruis, 5-Geoff Parling, 6-Tom Wood, 7-Calum Clark, 8- Ben Morgan
Replacements: 16-Luke Cowan-Dickie, 17-Alex Corbisiero, 18-David Wilson, 19-Dave Attwood, 20- James Haskell, 21- Danny Care, 22-Danny Cipriani, 23-Billy Twelvetrees

It will be interesting to see how Burgess and Slade line up in attack. I'd guess Slade will mainly play at OC, but we'll see.

Not sure I am getting Burgess at 12. Would seem to me to be a more natural fit at 13 if in the centres.

doctor_grey wrote:

DaveM wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:England team to face France
England XV: 15-Alex Goode, 14-Anthony Watson, 13-Henry Slade, 12- Sam Burgess, 11-Jonny May, 10- Owen Farrell, 9- Richard Wigglesworth; 1-Mako Vunipola, 2- Rob Webber, 3- Kieran Brookes, 4- George Kruis, 5-Geoff Parling, 6-Tom Wood, 7-Calum Clark, 8- Ben Morgan
Replacements: 16-Luke Cowan-Dickie, 17-Alex Corbisiero, 18-David Wilson, 19-Dave Attwood, 20- James Haskell, 21- Danny Care, 22-Danny Cipriani, 23-Billy Twelvetrees

It will be interesting to see how Burgess and Slade line up in attack. I'd guess Slade will mainly play at OC, but we'll see.

Not sure I am getting Burgess at 12.  Would seem to me to be a more natural fit at 13 if in the centres.  

Well SL has played Barritt a 13 before, but personally I think both he and Burgess lack the pace to convincingly play OC. Burgess will also be slightly less involved at 13 than 12, and I think the main point of having Burgess in the side is to have him on the ball as much as possible. But we'll see.

Stewie is going to copy Gatland…Burgess will be carrying up all day long, quick ball and the back 3 come into play. How else do you use a blunt instrument?

Could be an interesting match up vs a possible French centre pairing of any of either Mathieu Bastareaud, Alexandre Dumoulin, Gaël Fickou or Wesley Fofana.

That could be a tough ask for a talented uncapped youngster and a league convert both on debut.

Oh yeah i wanna see Burgess smash Bastaraeud!!

Gwlad wrote:Oh yeah i wanna see Burgess smash Bastaraeud!!

I'm not so sure. Basteraud seems to be enjoying the cafes in Toulon a wee bit too much, and looks a bit on the porky (or increasingly porkier) side. Could be an interesting competition, and a good education for Burgess.

doctor_grey wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Oh yeah i wanna see Burgess smash Bastaraeud!!

I'm not so sure.  Basteraud seems to be enjoying the cafes in Toulon a wee bit too much, and looks a bit on the porky (or increasingly porkier) side.  Could be an interesting competition, and a good education for Burgess.

Come off it doc, Burgess will target the guy and knock him into next week. Sam's big but his tackling is all timing, lines up the receiver and BOOOOOM!!!

Presumably, it will be easy to evaluate how Burgess might play himself out of contention - poor handling, high penalty count, bad positioning etc - but I'm less sure how the coaches will decide he's playing himself in. Will it be sufficient to have an error-free game, or does he need to show some magic?

I hope Big Sam's powerful personality isn't so overwhelming that Lancaster goes week at the knees at the thought of dropping him.

Surely Sam will be on 12 in defence and 13 in attack.

Slade is the creativity and they will use Burgess as they did Manu and Burrell at 13....

DaveM wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Can we have some muscle in there aswell though...not just flair.

I wouldn't say that England have been out-muscled much recently by the opposition?

Except the Ireland game....

George needs gametime like any player. I used the same argument when talking about Tomas Francis for Wales.

Especially when these players have no caps.

Perhaps I am exaggerating - the team isn't as bad as I make out. Just think Burgess-Slade could be a disjointed centre partnership which might not help Slade.

To be honest it's Webber's performance I worry most about because if he misfires like he has for Bath it could affect the rest of the team negatively.

I think it's reasonable to judge Burgess on three criteria:

1) Working well with the defensive system. If he can provide the kind of solidity that Barritt or Manu bring, that's a good thing.

2) Creating space in attack. That doesn't necessarily mean making big yards himself. It would be enough to be straightening the line, drawing defenders and releasing the man outside.

3) Not giving away silly penalties. If he manages a penalty count lower than a typical Haskell showing, that would be a good start.

I've deliberately pitched that at quite a subdued level and left out the conspicuous stuff. A couple of good line breaks or dominant tackles would be nice to see, but this is a scratch side in their first competitive game for several weeks.

It's actually much more important to see that he can do the basics consistently and fit into the attacking and defensive patterns well. I don't think it will happen but if he is making very visible plays but leaving gaps in the line or eating up space instead of creating it, I would expect him to be dropped.

Anyway lets look at the positives....

1-Mako Vunipola,
2- Rob Webber,
3- Kieran Brookes,
4- George Kruis,
5-Geoff Parling,
6-Tom Wood,
7-Calum Clark,
8- Ben Morgan

The pack should be strong on set piece and lineout (4 jumpers essentially), and yet should have a decent mobility. It also has Mako, Webber, Brookes, and Ben Morgan...all very good carriers. With Clark and Wood and Parling and Kruis there to hit the rucks and breakdowns.

9- Richard Wigglesworth
10- Owen Farrell
11-Jonny May
12- Sam Burgess
13-Henry Slade
14-Anthony Watson
15-Alex Goode

A nice mix of pace and creativity with some old fashioned power.

Poorfour I think that's fair criteria.

Perhaps you should add to 3) not give away turnovers too.

Don't want to see him being isolated.

bedfordwelsh

Success would be Clark being man of the match and showing he can cut it at international level, Burgess having a good game at 12, Slade being comfortable.

Ben Morgan put in a good 80 minute shift without getting injured.

Failure would be Clark struggling,Burgess and Slade struggling, Wigglesworth-Farrell combo not doing well,Webber having a shocker. Morgan being off the pace.

beshocked wrote:Perhaps I am exaggerating - the team isn't as bad as I make out. Just think Burgess-Slade could be a disjointed centre partnership which might not help Slade.

To be honest it's Webber's performance I worry most about because if he misfires like he has for Bath it could affect the rest of the team negatively.

I'm not too worried about Slade. He played in two different roles in two different scratch backlines against the Barbarians and looked very good in both roles. I expect that he and Farrell will be giving Burgess a lot of guidance on where to be and what to do.

If Webber is misfiring - which is a possibility but hasn't yet happened in an England shirt - it's better that we find out sooner rather than later. Look at it this way: George can't play himself out of contention on Saturday. Webber can. If he does, then I'd expect George and LCD to get more game time in the remaining two warmups.

I think it's the same with playing Morgan in this game, despite him only having been in full training for a week. He's a risk. If he can hack it, great. If he can't, then better to know immediately. I could even imagine one of Morgan or Easter being dropped immediately after this game, depending on how Morgan goes. If it happens it's likely to be behind the scenes, but I can see a scenario where if Morgan goes well he gets more game time next week and Easter gets played as a substitute lock if at all.

beshocked wrote:Poorfour I think that's fair criteria.

Perhaps you should add to 3) not give away turnovers too.

Don't want to see him being isolated.

bedfordwelsh

Success would be Clark being man of the match and showing he can cut it at international level, Burgess having a good game at 12, Slade being comfortable.

Ben Morgan put in a good 80 minute shift without getting injured.

Failure would be Clark struggling,Burgess and Slade struggling, Wigglesworth-Farrell combo not doing well,Webber having a shocker. Morgan being off the pace.

No pressure then, Callum lad!

It's also worth thinking about what the remaining selection questions are.

If we assume the following:
a) we can all name the preferred first XV, and Mako, Wilson, Parling, Morgan, Care (or Wigglesworth), Farrell and Goode as 7 of the 8 replacements
b) Morgan is fit (probable)
c) Goode's place is secure (almost but not totally certain)
d) We will take 5 props, 3 hookers, 3 scrum halves and 2 specialist 10s
e) May is certain of a spot as the only reserve winger.

Then I think we can say that 24 places in the squad are nailed down (preferred XXIII minus 1 hooker tbc plus May and Wigglesworth (or Care)).

3 more slots are straight shootouts - Corbs vs Brookes for the last prop slot, and 2 of Webber, LCD and George.

That leaves 4 slots that probably break down as 2 forwards and 2 backs. The 2 forwards have to cover lock and back row between them and will be chosen from Attwood, Kruis, Haskell, Clark and Easter.

The 2 backs will primarily be centres but coverage of 10 and 15 would be desirable, especially with goalkicking. 10 is probably more important as Nowell and Watson have both played fullback.

The point being that these final 4 selections won't necessarily be the best player in any given position. They need to be looked at as a combination that cover a range of positions and give England the best ability to cover a short term injury in one position.

The scenario Lancaster has to plan for is a short term injury to a key player - not enough to replace them permanently, but enough that someone needs to cover. For example, suppose one of the starting back five forwards had a case of Richard Hill's hamstring trouble. Lancaster needs enough cover in the squad that he can cope with that without having to drop a starting player permanently from the squad.

My guess is that at least two of the four remaining players will be picked for their ability to cover multiple positions rather than for necessarily being the best option in any one of those positions. That would seem to suit Haskell and Slade in particular.

Poorfour wrote:It's also worth thinking about what the remaining selection questions are.

If we assume the following:
a) we can all name the preferred first XV, and Mako, Wilson, Parling, Morgan, Care (or Wigglesworth), Farrell and Goode as 7 of the 8 replacements

No, no, a thousand times no. Goode only covers 15 and to an extent 10, the latter covered by Farrell anyway. Nowell and Watson can both cover 15, so having Goode there adds nothing. I'd hope it would be a proper centre wearing 23, with the possibility of Joseph moving to wing if absolutely necessary. Better than Brown moving there.

I think the guys saying that Clark is just an average premiership player may be impressed with his performance and pitch coverage. Remains to be seen if he's really of international quality but I expect him to be involved in a lot. Hope he does well.

Isn't Clark meant to be the fittest player in the squad pretty much? Not sure if he's got the best hands but if he puts up some big stats it could at least lay down a marker for post-WC. I think it will take a lot to change the back row selections at this point if Morgan comes through fit.

Wouldn't surprise me. He's on every loose ball, involved in so many breakdowns etc. He's not necessarily flashy but he does so much work.

thomh wrote:

Poorfour wrote:It's also worth thinking about what the remaining selection questions are.

If we assume the following:
a) we can all name the preferred first XV, and Mako, Wilson, Parling, Morgan, Care (or Wigglesworth), Farrell and Goode as 7 of the 8 replacements

No, no, a thousand times no. Goode only covers 15 and to an extent 10, the latter covered by Farrell anyway. Nowell and Watson can both cover 15, so having Goode there adds nothing. I'd hope it would be a proper centre wearing 23, with the possibility of Joseph moving to wing if absolutely necessary. Better than Brown moving there.

I didn't say it was *my* preferred XXIII, but what I meant was that Lancaster has pretty consistently had Goode on the bench. Realistically, that's not going to change unless, say, Cipriani plays a complete blinder and leapfrogs Farrell as backup 10 and Goode as backup 15.

Poorfour wrote:

thomh wrote:

Poorfour wrote:It's also worth thinking about what the remaining selection questions are.

If we assume the following:
a) we can all name the preferred first XV, and Mako, Wilson, Parling, Morgan, Care (or Wigglesworth), Farrell and Goode as 7 of the 8 replacements

No, no, a thousand times no. Goode only covers 15 and to an extent 10, the latter covered by Farrell anyway. Nowell and Watson can both cover 15, so having Goode there adds nothing. I'd hope it would be a proper centre wearing 23, with the possibility of Joseph moving to wing if absolutely necessary. Better than Brown moving there.

I didn't say it was *my* preferred XXIII, but what I meant was that Lancaster has pretty consistently had Goode on the bench. Realistically, that's not going to change unless, say, Cipriani plays a complete blinder and leapfrogs Farrell as backup 10 and Goode as backup 15.

In the Six Nations he usually had Cipriani and Twelvetrees on the bench didn't he? Twelvetrees wore 23 a few times certainly. Can't remember Goode appearing beyond his start v Ireland.

Scottrf wrote:Wouldn't surprise me. He's on every loose ball, involved in so many breakdowns etc. He's not necessarily flashy but he does so much work.

Calum Clark had a great season and is the type of player Lancaster likes...a more physical , aggressive version of Tom Wood. He could very well seal his squad place with a good performance.

Instead of whom, do you think? Lancaster has spoken a lot about needing as many caps in the squad as possible and replacing one of Wood or Haskell with him would go radically against that. Haskell may have done the odd muppet thing, but he's a 60-cap player who started every Six Nations game.

I think this is more muddled thinking / stubbornness from SL. He decides on a player 'type' he wants before actually assessing the available players, then forces a fit. We’ve seen this in the past with the BR and winger selections (eg 6’s as 8s, locks as 6s, FBs as wingers…). In the case of Sam B he’s exposed though. Burgess found centre a bit too uninvolved for his preference, Ford thinks his best club position is BR, yet SL is determined to use him as his carrying midfielder. Sorry Stewie, but this aint RL. And few agree with you. How can a player that can’t hold down a club position be selected at test level at that position (and in a RWC at that). Sam isn’t a naught boy, but he aint no Messiah either. And the Aus midfield would make a monkey of him.

I think SL has done excellent things for England, but he doesn’t quite have the experience, tactical nous or flexibility to win serious silver-ware IMO. Having said that, this team will be interesting, if not even remotely like a RWC winning side. Just the sort of team I’d have put Wade in.

thomh wrote:Instead of whom, do you think? Lancaster has spoken a lot about needing as many caps in the squad as possible and replacing one of Wood or Haskell with him would go radically against that. Haskell may have done the odd muppet thing, but he's a 60-cap player who started every Six Nations game.

Well that's the question THomh. Clark can cover the whole back row....AND second row if really required (though I would hope that's not needed) He is an identikit of Tom Wood, just maybe a bit more aggressive version.

Thing is even though Haskell has never consistently shown his form....I don't think Lancaster will drop him.

Geordiefalcon I think you're exaggerating a bit when saying Clark can cover the whole backrow and 2nd row.

6 and 7 yes, other positions - no - we'll see how Clark does. Lancaster obviously has high hopes. We know that Lancaster is a big fan.

beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon I think you're exaggerating a bit when saying Clark can cover the whole backrow and 2nd row.

6 and 7 yes, other positions - no - we'll see how Clark does. Lancaster obviously has high hopes. We know that Lancaster is a big fan.

Clark has indeed played in the second row reasonably well. He hasn't had quite so many opportunities with all the second row talent Saints have had, but could do as well as Easter, Croft, etc.. But Mallinder has made sure many of his players are flexible. Not sure I have ever seen him at 8, though a mate told me his did well there.

beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon I think you're exaggerating a bit when saying Clark can cover the whole backrow and 2nd row.

6 and 7 yes, other positions - no - we'll see how Clark does. Lancaster obviously has high hopes. We know that Lancaster is a big fan.

Ok im sorry he can cover 6 and 7 very well and second row in an emergency. 8 would probably be like the Tom Wood disaster.

However I don't seem him much different to Haskell in what he can cover...and to be honest I be t he'll be more consistent.

doctor grey there's a slight difference covering at club level and international level - certainly when this will be Clark's first game.

Needs to prove himself in one position before talking about covering more than one position!

Going to be interesting to see what happens.

But surely Clark is trying to play for a squad spot...and that spot is the player who covers...all the spots?

beshocked wrote:Poorfour I think that's fair criteria.

Perhaps you should add to 3) not give away turnovers too.

Don't want to see him being isolated.

bedfordwelsh

Success would be Clark being man of the match and showing he can cut it at international level, Burgess having a good game at 12, Slade being comfortable.

Ben Morgan put in a good 80 minute shift without getting injured.

Failure would be Clark struggling,Burgess and Slade struggling, Wigglesworth-Farrell combo not doing well,Webber having a shocker. Morgan being off the pace.

That won't be 100% down to him though, our support runners need to be working hard too.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

thomh wrote:Instead of whom, do you think? Lancaster has spoken a lot about needing as many caps in the squad as possible and replacing one of Wood or Haskell with him would go radically against that. Haskell may have done the odd muppet thing, but he's a 60-cap player who started every Six Nations game.

Well that's the question THomh. Clark can cover the whole back row....AND second row if really required (though I would hope that's not needed) He is an identikit of Tom Wood, just maybe a bit more aggressive version.

Thing is even though Haskell has never consistently shown his form....I don't think Lancaster will drop him.

Yes I think if Clark was going to get a place above Haskell or Wood now then it would have happened already. So you think he could be competing for the last second row spot like Easter is? I haven't seen him play there much that I can remember.

On your comparison to Wood - is he as capable in the lineout or as fast? Wood has been a bit knackered for a while I think but he's pretty pacy normally and after a break and pre-season should be back to that condition.

Let's be honest, assuming no injuries we can be fairly sure of the following making the final 31:

1 - Marler, Mako V
2 - Tom Youngs
3 - Cole, Wilson
2nd row: Lawes, Launchbury
6 - Wood, Haskell (versatile cover)
7 - Robshaw
8 - Billy V, Morgan

9 - Ben Youngs, Care, Wiggy
10 - Ford, Farrell
Wings - Nowell, Watson, May
Centres - Barritt, Joseph, Burrell
Full-backs: Brown

That's 24 inked in.

Corbs v Brooks? Can't see going with 6 specialists - must be one of the two
Two other hookers of Webber, LCD and George.

So 27, leaving 4 spots for grabs:

One specialist 2nd row (Parling?) plus 1 back row who can perhaps cover 2nd row in an emergency (Easter or Clark).

2 more backs? Must have some further cover at 10, centres and 15 (given the lack of back 3 players in the squad). Makes it look like Goode is a fair bet as I can't see us going in with Cips as full back cover off the bench. Not sure I like the idea of Goode as the 3rd choice FH though, so Cips or Slade are probably playing for one spot, with Slade's ability to cover 12 and 13 being a benefit there.

Difficult for Burgess to make the squad unless he shines sufficiently in the warm up game to get past Burrell, as he doesn't offer the same versatility (unless this playing at 12 is a ruse and he's really been flying at 6 in training, and will shock the world when he lines up there in the first RWC game ).

It's gotta be hard putting Corbs in. I know he has pedigree but he hasn't played much rugby and just hasn't played that well. When he has he's rarely played 80. I just can't see how he's put in the recent performances to warrant a place. Have to imagine he will favour Easter over Clark based on past picks and the fact he can cover 8.

beshocked wrote:doctor grey there's a slight difference covering at club level and international level - certainly when this will be Clark's first game.

Needs to prove himself in one position before talking about covering more than one position!

Going to be interesting to see what happens.

Yes, mon ami, I know the differences between club and international level. Clark will acquit himself well on either side of the scrum. About that, I have no concerns. We don't know the kind of flexibility Lancaster is looking for, nor what they do in practice. You have to keep in mind Lancaster talks to all the club coaches and that input also shapes the final decisions. We will see........

GeordieFalcon wrote:

beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon I think you're exaggerating a bit when saying Clark can cover the whole backrow and 2nd row.

6 and 7 yes, other positions - no - we'll see how Clark does. Lancaster obviously has high hopes. We know that Lancaster is a big fan.

Ok im sorry he can cover 6 and 7 very well and second row in an emergency. 8 would probably be like the Tom Wood disaster.

However I don't seem him much different to Haskell in what he can cover...and to be honest I be t he'll be more consistent.

Clark has never run into a goal post.